David Moyes played his expected line-up. Tim Cahill played off Jermaine Beckford upfront.

The game had two phases – first Everton shut Chelsea out and the game was neutral, before Chelsea dominated after half-time.

A tale of two flanks

The most promising area of the pitch in the first half was down Everton’s left, Chelsea’s right. There were two reasons for this, because both sides were lopsided. First, Chelsea’s system looked like a 4-3-2-1 when they had the ball, but when they lost it, Florent Malouda dropped back to the left. However, Saloman Kalou didn’t move to the right, with Ramires expected to do a lot of work without the ball, covering both the right-centre channel, and tracking Leighton Baines. Ramires made his name as a ’shuttler’, and Ancelotti was therefore happy to tell Kalou to stay up the pitch.

In addition, Leon Osman was told to keep an eye on Ramires when Everton didn’t have the ball – possibly thinking that Ramires was effectively playing on the right of a four-man midfield, although Everton’s left-sided midfielder usually plays very narrow anyway. The outcome was that Ferreira had space to move into when Chelsea got the ball, and he was frequently in acres of space for Frank Lampard and Jon Obi Mikel to find on the flank. Equally, Baines had space to exploit down the left, as always – Chelsea had a lot of problems dealing with him in the league meeting between the sides at Stamford Bridge this season, and though he didn’t produce as many chances with his crossing here, he was still an outlet.

Coleman v Cole

The other interesting battle on the pitch was Seamus Coleman v Ashley Cole. There was nothing particularly tactical about this contest, it was simply interesting to see how frequently Coleman beat Cole – in particular, when the two were in a direct battle of speed. With Malouda playing much more central than he did in the first game when Chelsea had the ball, Coleman didn’t have to cover Phil Neville as much, and therefore he license to focus on attacking Cole.

Chelsea’s lack of width high up the pitch played into Everton’s hands – they defended narrow, and Chelsea found it difficult to play through them. Chelsea’s width and main threat came from full-back, but with Cole tracked by Coleman and Ferreira not making the most of his time on the ball, Chelsea didn’t threaten much.

Both sides were essentially playing on the counter-attack – Jermaine Beckford made some decent runs upfront and Coleman’s pace caused some problems, but there was relatively little first half goalmouth action.

Second half

Ancelotti chose to bring on Michael Essien at half time, and removed Mikel. This was coupled with Chelsea increasing the tempo they played at – Essien looked for forward passes whereas Mikel plays from side to side, and Chelsea were the better side in the second half. Despite their dominance, they rarely managed to construct any clear chances in open play – their best chances came when they lofted the ball into the box from wide areas or set-pieces, often being first to the second balls. Tim Howard made some good saves throughout the game.

The match remained intriguing but was less of an interesting tactical contest towards the end of normal time. Both sides kept the same shape despite substitutions, and the stalemate continued.

Extra time

Before extra time Ancelotti brought on Nicolas Anelka, who made a good impact by using his pace against the tired legs in Everton’s backline. It was Anelka who created the goal down the right, soon after Ferreira got the ball in space down that side. Again, the chance came in a scrappy manner, as Drogba’s miscontrol fell to Lampard, who smashed the ball in.

Everton got back in the game by winning a free-kick after a simple long ball pumped forward – Baines stepped up and curled the ball into the net, forcing the penalty shoot out.

Conclusion

The main interest here was in the first half, with both leaving spaces down the same side of the pitch, and therefore Baines and Ferreira being the players with most space.

As whole, this was basically all about how well Everton could stop Chelsea – Ancelotti’s side’s narrowness made it rather easy for Moyes. Anelka drifted into wide spaces and helped stretch the Everton defence – it’s difficult to understand why Malouda and Kalou weren’t told to play wider earlier on.

Chelsea’s poor record in penalty shoot-outs continues – they’ve lost seven of their last eight – and they also find playing against Everton very difficult.

Michael, do you have a view on why Arteta isn’t more influential in Everton’s attack? His passes rarely seem to be forward, and when he finds himself some space he can’t really create anything from it. Fellaini has looked much more like the key man in central midfield for some time now.

Karl K on February 19, 2011 at 5:00 pm

Two things.

First, as you note, Chelsea plays very narrow. In a way, they have to: they have no true wingers and their lack of speed at the back (your note on the Cole/Coleman contest was spot on) means, paradoxically, they have to narrow the playing area to create congestion so when they lose the ball, they do so with lots of bodies in the ball space, and they are not caught out on the counter for speed. And they can have success with it, as they are technically able to hold the ball move it in that narrow space.

Second, there is absolutely no excuse, at this level, not to get a penalty kick on frame. Skying the ball over goal like Cole did is schoolboy stuff. If you get it on frame, and the keeper saves, then you’ve done your job. Keepers as good as Howard and Czech are likely to save at least one PK in a five or six kick set. So get it on frame with some venom and let the keeper make you miss.

zozo on February 19, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Chelsea slowed down after second goal and let Everton took control, but….they didn’t really defend in numbers which allow Everton to control the game. That’s probably because of the tiredness I guess but there’s period in 2nd half where Everton can’t even get out of their half and even if they did Ivanovic was terrific, not letting Beckford in the game at all. I think if they were in control of the game like this, Everton possibly won’t get that freekick chance.

Shame, we played well enough, Drogba looking good, Lampard missed a lot and Beckham-esque moment killed us off.

Copenhagen in 3 days. Didn’t really hope much..

-KTBFFH .

Keith on February 19, 2011 at 5:38 pm

Chelsea needs to dump Anelka. The guy looked like he was mad that he had to walk up and take a penalty kick at the end.

One thing I don’t get is why doesn’t Ancelotti play Anelka in Malouda’s spot (usual) and play Malouda in a wider role than Anelka normally plays? That way both could stay wider and then cut into the box in the final third. This would 1. let Malouda and Anelka shoot with their stronger foot 2. give Chelsea width in midfield and 3. still allow Cole and whoever will be the RB to cross behind the forwards in the final 3rd.

Ronaldo, Robben, Ribery, David Silva, and Messi are all great players but they are better when they are allowed to cut in on their strong foot. Chelsea seems to have Anelka and Malouda in the wrong spot. Even Kalou would be stronger if he started wide left and cut in on his right foot.

mijusta on February 19, 2011 at 5:59 pm

Even if he missed the penalty, he contributed to second goal have you forgotten.. be appreciative.

Lastly, those said players are all wingers/strikers. The term inverted winger who cut inside is use for ‘wingers’. Chelsea has no true wingers. /endstory

Keith on February 19, 2011 at 6:11 pm

Malouda is a striker? I wouldn’t call him that. And Ronaldo wasn’t a winger at Man Utd proving someone who plays as a central forward can play as a winger. Anelka has played wide all year. Yes, he’s a natural ST but he’s normally playing like a ST/W mix. All I’m saying is if Malouda and Anelka switched sides they could both cut in on their stronger foot.

Anelka does sometimes make great plays. He’s very talented. That’s why it’s frustrating when he takes a 1 step penalty kick. The guy has a well documented attitude problem. Right now he could be a super-sub for Chelsea coming in after 65 minutes and providing a real spark. However, everyone knows he’ll cry about it and that’s why he started at Fulham instead of Drogba. I’m just saying the negatives he brings is starting to outgrow the advantages he brings now that Chelsea has Torres too. (Yes I know he didn’t start today and I think that’s why he was mad).

Anelka, Drogba, and Torres all playing for Chelsea should mean that Chelsea has 2 healthy and fresh strikers and sometimes (when all 3 are healthy) Chelsea should have the BEST sub in the game coming off their bench (well 2nd best to Kaka). However, because Anelka has an attitude problem I think it’s going to become a big mess.

RA on February 19, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Anelka has been taking penalties like that since the start of the season if I remember rightly and thats the first one he has missed. So I think its a bit unfair to say he did it because he has an attitude problem rather than a deliberate method of taking penalties.

I never said Malouda is a striker, I said he is not a true winger, why are you changing my words.. He and Anelka is a wide forward in case you don’t know. Malouda occassionally play right but has no real impact so far. If you have watch most Chelsea games this season, you should know; have you? lol.

Please stop your point on ‘cutting onto stronger foot’, there’s no need for that, both of them is already playing centrally (re : wide forwards) to allow fullbacks overlapping.

Why will Anelka get mad? He has played hell lot of games this season, need some rest; Torres addition allow for squad rotation. Do you forget we have CL ties 3 days away?

p/s – That Kaka statement is a filler or what?

Keith on February 20, 2011 at 3:59 pm

What is your problem with me? I said Anelka would be the 2nd best sub coming off the bench in the world IMHO behind Kaka and you say is it “a filler” statement. Chill out.

Anelka and Malouda both play somewhat wide. They aren’t both playing centrally on defense nor at first on offense. However, when Chelsea do have the ball for a while they eventually shuffle inwards and allow Cole and whoever’s at RB to provide the width down low. However, against Liverpool and in the 1st half against Everton and in that rough patch of games Anelka and Malouda were limited in their attack. This is partly due to Chelsea having less possession and partly due to Drogba going cole and Lampard being out but I think if Chelsea had inverted Anelka and Malouda their would have been more of an attacking threat. Why are you taking this like it’s a person slight? And for the record, yes I’ve watched every Chelsea game this year except the Chelsea game at Sunderland.

minimalas on February 20, 2011 at 5:48 pm

what a rosy delusion!!if you have the so called best strike force in the world with best sub ( ) , why is this lack of goals? wake up man take off your glasses and chew this:anelka is not even in the top 10 of so called best subs, he’s a moneygrabing french cunt, who has no respect for his country, he’s garbage in terms of a man and only avarage in terms of player. you know fuck all about football

Keith on February 19, 2011 at 6:19 pm

This is from ZM: “Chelsea’s lack of width high up the pitch played into Everton’s hands – they defended narrow, and Chelsea found it difficult to play through them. Chelsea’s width and main threat came from full-back, but with Cole tracked by Coleman and Ferreira not making the most of his time on the ball, Chelsea didn’t threaten much.”

And Cole does cross in behind Malouda. I don’t understand what you don’t get. Cole often runs behind Malouda as Malouda moves into the box area when Chelsea have possession. Maybe it’s just US TV but they use the word cross for that.

mijusta on February 20, 2011 at 4:36 am

Cross behind the forwards? Term just doesnt seems right. I imagine Cole crossing in central position just outside of the box behind Drogba.

‘“Chelsea’s lack of width high up the pitch”

First, you said midfield width. ‘high up the pitch’ indicates it is in the wing position… which I assume is not a “midfield width”.

Keith on February 20, 2011 at 4:01 pm

But that’s not where Cole runs. He runs along the sidelines and then when he’s near the box he slows up and looks for a cross inward but rarely does Cole actually go into the box himself (and when he does he normally does so on a counter attack).

Keith on February 19, 2011 at 6:06 pm

Also, Chelsea really really need to get a real RB this summer. Every team knows the key to shut down Chelsea is to shut down Cole. That used to be really hard but sadly it seems to be much easier now with Cole’s pace going (probably due to too many games between Chelsea and England and it’s really sad that by 29 he’s burned out). All it takes is playing a good RW who can press Cole in his defensive zone.

Normally (like today) it leaves the right side more open and Chelsea could and should be able to take advantage of this opening. In every game this season there is always 4-5 good opportunities to score if only the cross from the right would actually land in the box. Bosingwa seems to have lost his touch and either sails the cross pass the box or drills it a foot off the ground into a defender’s legs. Ivanovic is solid as a CB but his lack of pace is much more obvious when he’s out right and he knows it so he doesn’t attack much from RB. Ivanovic out at RB seems to lead to 1-2 great counter attacks from the LW/LF every time he’s out there. And Ferriera is a shell of his former self. He should only be on this team as a 3rd string defender because of his defensive versatility.

Can you imagine what would have happened today if Chelsea had a good RB? Chelsea would be able to attack from the right and left forcing Everton to either let the RB attack and attack or force Everton to balance out more giving Cole more room to attack. Everton would have to choose between two bad options. However, right now Chelsea can’t go and buy someone like Anyukov, Uchida, Miguel, Cassani, Santon, Angel or the under used Zabaleta. So I think Chelsea needs to move Essien out right until they can get someone. He is defensively Msponsible and has lots of pace and right now because Chelsea is so narrow Essien has no room to operate and show his skills. He’s being stymied and at RB he could show his true skills. Plus Ramires looks like a solid MF right now and the difference between Essien and whoever plays RB is MUCH MUCH greater than the difference between Essien and Ramires in a narrow midfield.

RAHUL on February 19, 2011 at 8:02 pm

can i make a suggestion here can you please give the details about the shots on target and off target because rarely do i find teams or players who are very good at shooting from distance or who can really be threat outside of the box . also a no. of times i find that teams try to create a perfect goal when they do have chances from outside the box and players are hesitant to take it . to be honest the trouble with these big teams or big clubs they try to create a perfect goal right within the six yards box at time when drogba and kalou can take a shot from distance when they have a one single defender in front of them and they can curl it or can even take a shot they will try to beat the defender and then take it and then most of the times miss it . doesnt matters what chelsea played but they were not able to finish what they created and they suffered .

I think you might have misjudged the formation for Chelsea. They were playing a lot more of a flat midfield than they have in the past. Mikel in particular was much more forward than he has ever been for Chelsea. There was no real holder, and Ramires was a lot wider than he has been for Chelsea playing their 4-3-3 / 4-3-2-1.

gutshot74 on February 20, 2011 at 1:49 am

I thought formations were determined when defensively organized. Am I missing something? Wasn’t Chelsea’s midfield a flat 4 in the first half?

Maybe there’s an aspect I haven’t considered, learning about this just like everyone else.

Elwood on February 20, 2011 at 5:13 am

Actually, I thought Chelsea created a lot of chances, Terry, Malouda, and Lampard missed some good ones, and Howard had a good game. I guess it was just one of those days.

Chelsea looked very fresh at the start of extra-time, which is surprising considering the number of players they have in early-thirties.

Mr Peppers on February 20, 2011 at 9:06 am

Bring back Sturridge!

Abhishek on February 20, 2011 at 1:15 pm

Chelsea had an off game but with so many players out of form,they just couldnt win it.An inform Lampard would have put atleast 2 of the oppertunities in the 90mins.Consequently lack of form of Lampard,MAlouda,Mikel is forcing Carlo to switch formations to somehow get them over the line.Lampard needs to replaced as much as any one else in their line up.Am expecting many new faces in the summer.Its something no tactics can solve.

rafa on February 21, 2011 at 6:11 am

Chelsea needs some new players, not just for freshness and younger legs , but, most of all, they need fresh minds to get back a new joy to play and get off the fear that surronds the team everytime they get bad moments…

Barry on February 21, 2011 at 11:21 am

I have always been supportive of Ancelotti but his tactics in the last three matches have been baffling and have resulted in a lack of width. Sitting high up in the West stand, the narrowness on the right was obvious, Ramirez kept drifting into the centre of the pitch.We should have started with 4-3-3, Malouda and Anelka either side of Drogba. Kalou is not good enough to start, he lacks awareness and football intelligence, although he is a very effective impact sub.Liverpool, Fulham and Everton all defending deep have not been stretched by our narrowness going forward. Essien has to start in preference to Mikel as he is more offensively minded. Just because Ancelotti is an experienced Italian manager doesn’t
guarantee tactical intelligence,remember Capello against Germany last summer. Unless Ancelotti takes his head out of the sand and starts with 4-3-3 we are heading for disaster in the league and europe.